Posted on 06/11/2005 9:20:58 AM PDT by quidnunc
The National Hockey League's long march to irrelevance continues apace. Last week, cable-sports king ESPN broke off negotiations with NHL execs and said it will move to schedule alternate programming for next season. This came just days after the network announced it would not exercise its $60-million option to claim broadcast rights if and when the 2005-2006 campaign gets underway. "We really had no choice," said Mark Shapiro, ESPN's executive VP for programming and production. "We're not going to be held hostage like we were last season."
The NHL, you see, has never been very good to ESPN. Leave aside, for a moment, pro hockey's ongoing labor spat, which cost the league its 2004-2005 season. The roots of the NHL-ESPN partnership date back to the network's founding in 1979. ESPN briefly held the cable broadcast rights to NHL contests during the 1980s — until the league dumped ESPN in 1988 and chose to go with Sports Channel instead. At the time, hockey legend Wayne Gretzky said sticking with ESPN would've been "better for the game." "Sure, we got more money from Sports Channel," the Great One wrote in his 1990 autobiography, "but how much did we lose in exposure?"
Good point, and one that NHL suits quickly took note of. ESPN regained the cable broadcast rights to NHL action in 1992. This time, the network's choice proved felicitous. Hockey's popularity skyrocketed following the New York Rangers' gripping Stanley Cup run in 1994. Suddenly, everybody wanted a piece of "the coolest game on earth." But over the past several years, the talent pool has been diluted by near-constant league expansion, scoring has plunged, the games have gotten slow and boring, and TV ratings have sunk. The heady days of the mid 1990s seem a distant memory.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
I remember an excellent Bruins-Flyers fight from the early 70s, and it ended up with Derek Sanderson and (I think) Pie Face McKenzie going into the stands at the Spectrum. One of the bloodiest I ever saw was a Flyers-Kings game from the mid 70s. For many years it held the record for most penalty minutes handed out. I just remember Tiger Williams and Don Saleski throwing haymakers.
I agree with your general approach, but I like the idea of a hockey league that has no more than 24 teams. There are really only eight solid hockey markets in North America these days, and by this I mean markets where a team can draw a lot of fans and pay competitive salaries even in marginal years. These include the Original Six franchises, plus Philadelphia and Edmonton. A "second tier" group of teams would include larger U.S. cities like St. Louis, the Twin Cities, and perhaps Los Angeles, along with smaller Canadian cities like Vancouver, Calgary, and Winnipeg.
I remember Bud Selig trying to contract the Twins and I want to say the Expos not too many years ago. The Twins promptly ran off two or three straight division titles, and since moving to DC, the Nationals/Expos seem to have turned it around.
Two or three teams I would take a very hard look at dumping would be Tampa Bay, Milwaukee, and Kansas City. Prior to winning the World Series a couple of years ago, I would have included the Marlins, but they seem to have gotten over the fire-sale fiasco after their first title and are playing competitive ball. The same can't be said for any of the others mentioned who've suffered from poor management. The Royals would be hard, because they have a rich history, but they haven't been able to afford to field a competitive team in nearly 20 years. Tampa Bay just seems like there's no life in the franchise, and Milwaukee looks the same.
I could care less about the NBA. If I want to watch basketball, I'll watch the college game.
I'd leave the NFL alone for now, but 32 teams is about the max they can handle.
As for the NHL, I'd dump all of the franchises south of the Mason/Dixon line except maybe leaving Dallas and Tampa Bay around. They have the snowbirds to support a hockey team. I'd also get rid of Phoenix and Anaheim. There's just something weird about a hockey team playing in Arizona, and LA doesn't need two hockey teams. I'd give a few other struggling clubs like Pittsburgh and Buffalo 2-3 years to turn things around, or get shut down.
The league just can't support 30 teams, especially those flung around the sunbelt. The fans will turn out for 2-3 years, but eventually, they'll get bored and stop coming. A lot of minor league teams were a big hit down here for a few years, but after the novelty of the fights and complexity of the rules sank in, attendance fell, and the clubs eventually folded.
"Tampa has a lot of Michiganers which helps."Your right.I believe Tampa Bay is comprised mostly of northern transplants.I mentioned my Dad's from Buffalo,but i have 4 co-workers also from Buffalo.Coincidence?I understand the winters are brutal:)I would think Atlanta(potentially)has a large enough pool.Lots of northern transplants there as well.
24 teams is OK with me- as long as Minnesota doesn't get shafted. LOL
What channel? I always enjoyed watching Aussie Rules, but the only thing that I can find any more is some weekly hour-long "best of" show that Fox Soccer Channel uses at 3:00 in the morning to fill time.
Not if the greedy TV networks keep adding all sorts of ridiculous clutter to their screen. In 10 years, I fully expect to see a score box in the upper-left corner, a permanent Viagra ad in the upper-right corner, a sports ticker across the bottom of the screen and a Diet Coke ad skipping on top of the ticker every 10 minutes. That's where we're headed, thanks to devices like TIVO that can edit out actual commercial breaks and cause corporate America to brainstorm more ways to irritate television viewers.
add fighting to that. the reason sticks are high is because of helmets, and you cant beat the hell out of the guy who just gave you a stick to you face. 2 min minor, 5 if its ugly. Maybe a game if you kill em....Get back to a gentlemens game.
Lil shmucks that hit and run, deserve walloped, star or not.
Well, if you ask me the NHL should be restricted to only Americans and Canadians, and a separate pro hockey organization should be formed, called the "Russo-European Hockey League" for all the Russians and Europeans who play. After all, if you look at NHL rosters you'll see that most teams are two-thirds Czech or Russian, (also several Scandinavians, one third Canadian, and every now and then an American or two.
Football is made for television, far more than baseball, basketball or hockey. If ESPN dumps hockey, where are they going to go? Home Shopping Network?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.